How popular will MJ be in 10 years?

Post #141 » by **-Sammy-** » Sun Jan 25, 2015 5:41 pm

I'm not sure 'popular' is the best word to describe his presence in the culture. Certainly for those of use who watched him play, we have direct insight into how his influence shapes today's basketball scene, but more and more, it's becoming the case that basketball fans acknowledge HIM the same way someone like ME acknowledges, say, Chamberlain or Russell: I kind of have to take the old-timers' word for how great they were because I wasn't a witness.

I don't think we'd describe Russell or Chamberlain as 'popular'; maybe 'revered' or 'respected' or 'iconic.' MJ's presence and influence as a ballplayer is in the midst of transitioning to that same state. As a GM/shoe salesman/media figure, he's obviously more relevant than those other guys, though.

Santana Moss · Post #142 » by **Santana Moss** » Sun Jan 25, 2015 6:34 pm

The most common doubters of MJ being GOAT are fans of players that are CURRENTLY in their prime. For example, fans argued that Kobe was better than MJ. But now that he's on the back-end of his career and his legacy is pretty much cemented, it's not a commonly held belief anymore.

Same thing with Lebron James, unless James pulls out something ridiculous, I'm sure the number of those claiming he's better than MJ will disappear once his legacy turns out to be nothing out of the ordinary. Joe Montana's prime is in the 80s, 10 years before Michael Jordan, and the only person challenging his legacy is Tom Brady. MJ's legacy will still be strong in 10 years.

Buckeye-NBAFan · Post #143 » by **Buckeye-NBAFan** » Sun Jan 25, 2015 6:49 pm

Jordan isn't a player, he's a brand, more specifically "Jordan Brand". Asking how popular MJ will be in 10 years is like asking how popular Under Armour will be in 10 years.

Beffiosa · Post #144 » by **Beffiosa** » Sun Jan 25, 2015 7:32 pm

As long as the media still put up comparison charts each time someone has a great month, or some aging media heads (Skip Bayless) keep saying "Jordan would have never done that" then the 10 year old proceeds to youtube a Jordan highlight and say "wow he is the GOAT for real"

nikster · Post #145 » by **nikster** » Sun Jan 25, 2015 7:56 pm

He will probably still be the greatest. But i really hate the 6/6 argument in the finals. Its like people think losing earlier in the playoffs is better than losing in the finals. I would think something like 5/8 is more impressive considering you lead a team to the final 2 more times (obviously depends on strength of conference but im assuming everythings equal)

Albanian Damien · Post #146 » by **Albanian Damien** » Sun Jan 25, 2015 8:03 pm

Honestly I think the total opposite of most people in this thread. Some people think his legacy will fade but on the contrary I think Jordan will reach Wayne Gretzky/Pele levels of greatness. The further away we go from his actual career the more mythicized it will become. The gap will widen even further as Jordan gets elevated to God status. We've already seen it happened since he retired on the Wiz. I think the myth will only continue to grow.

Buckeye-NBAFan · Post #147 » by **Buckeye-NBAFan** » Sun Jan 25, 2015 8:14 pm

nikster wrote:He will probably still be the greatest. But i really hate the 6/6 argument in the finals. Its like people think losing earlier in the playoffs is better than losing in the finals. I would think something like 5/8 is more impressive considering you lead a team to the final 2 more times (obviously depends on strength of conference but im assuming everythings equal)

6/6 isn't better, and it isn't the reason Jordan is Jordan. 5/8 spread out over an 18 year career just doesn't mean the same thing as 3 straight, twice. The fact that Jordan's titles are consecutive speaks to him dominating the NBA for a prolonged period. If you win, lose, win, lose, win, you win 3 titles in 5 years, but you were beatable in those other years. Jordan wasn't beatable in his prime. His team won the title in every full season he played.

And Jordan isn't just titles. Kobe for instance has titles, but he doesn't have the dominant, efficient numbers, hence the lack of MVPs. LeBron has numbers, but the '11 Finals is a huge blemish, and he still needs more rings.

Jordan is LeBron's numbers + Kobe's wins. Duncan was a different beast, because he's been consistently better than Kobe over his career, but he never reeled off the number of titles in a row during his peak that Jordan did, Duncan just led great teams over a longer career, but, while he was the most important player on those teams, he also sometimes took a back seat (didn't win FMVP in two of those years).

inquisitive · Post #148 » by **inquisitive** » Sun Jan 25, 2015 8:22 pm

depends on what kobe does outside the court...if kobe gets into the NBA business or something...he could start taking over that popularity. going to TNT would be a start...coming out with apparel, etc......then maybe getting into ownership down the road.

nikster · Post #149 » by **nikster** » Sun Jan 25, 2015 9:34 pm

Buckeye-NBAFan wrote:
nikster wrote:He will probably still be the greatest. But i really hate the 6/6 argument in the finals. Its like people think losing earlier in the playoffs is better than losing in the finals. I would think something like 5/8 is more impressive considering you lead a team to the final 2 more times (obviously depends on strength of conference but im assuming everythings equal)

6/6 isn't better, and it isn't the reason Jordan is Jordan. 5/8 spread out over an 18 year career just doesn't mean the same thing as 3 straight, twice. The fact that Jordan's titles are consecutive speaks to him dominating the NBA for a prolonged period. If you win, lose, win, lose, win, you win 3 titles in 5 years, but you were beatable in those other years. Jordan wasn't beatable in his prime. His team won the title in every full season he played.

And Jordan isn't just titles. Kobe for instance has titles, but he doesn't have the dominant, efficient numbers, hence the lack of MVPs. LeBron has numbers, but the '11 Finals is a huge blemish, and he still needs more rings.

Jordan is LeBron's numbers + Kobe's wins. Duncan was a different beast, because he's been consistently better than Kobe over his career, but he never reeled off the number of titles in a row during his peak that Jordan did, Duncan just led great teams over a longer career, but, while he was the most important player on those teams, he also sometimes took a back seat (didn't win FMVP in two of those years).

I realize that he also has the numbers. Just frustrated with those who are saying that any player would need a perfect finals record to be in the conversation for GOAT.
But its not the Jordan wasnt unbeatable in his prime, his team was. Scottie led the Bulls to 50+wins the season Jordan retired

spectacularmove · Post #150 » by **spectacularmove** » Sun Jan 25, 2015 9:52 pm

I actually think Lebron's career wil cement even more MJ's legend and his status as the GOAT. At this point (pass his peak and probably ending his prime) its pretty obvious Lebron will not surpass MJ as the GOAT, and James is a monster, its stupid to deny that, the dude is a freak of nature. So in the future, comparisions with MJ wil be even more unreacheable, cause you'll have to surpass Lebron first.
In other words, I feel Lebron's career will (already has) have a negative impact on players like Magic and Bird, cause he surpass them, with the MJ is the exact opposite.

Greek · Post #151 » by **Greek** » Sun Jan 25, 2015 10:12 pm

What makes HUGE deference with legends like MJ and Lebron is that every game is recorded, and advanced stats changed how we see the game. Now is much harder to be hide behind the myth like Wilt. I am not sure if thats a good thing, the myths works in favor of the game not against it...

JeepCSC · Post #152 » by **JeepCSC** » Sun Jan 25, 2015 10:21 pm

The most amazing thing about Jordan's Finals record isn't merely that it was perfect. It is that every preseason camp that Jordan started in the 1990s ended in a championship. He reached the top and then seemed to defy gravity and stayed there. It was Rocky Marciano-esque.

Buckeye-NBAFan · Post #153 » by **Buckeye-NBAFan** » Sun Jan 25, 2015 10:24 pm

nikster wrote:I realize that he also has the numbers. Just frustrated with those who are saying that any player would need a perfect finals record to be in the conversation for GOAT.
But its not the Jordan wasnt unbeatable in his prime, his team was. Scottie led the Bulls to 50+wins the season Jordan retired

For players judged on titles, winning is all that matters. If the Bulls didn't draft Pippen, Jordan would be considered a worse player. Not fair or true, but just how it is. People don't take into account that Russell played with a team of HOFers and the greatest executive/coach of all-time and Wilt didn't until he was much older. They just look at the 11 rings Russell won.

nikster · Post #154 » by **nikster** » Sun Jan 25, 2015 10:33 pm

Buckeye-NBAFan wrote:
nikster wrote:I realize that he also has the numbers. Just frustrated with those who are saying that any player would need a perfect finals record to be in the conversation for GOAT.
But its not the Jordan wasnt unbeatable in his prime, his team was. Scottie led the Bulls to 50+wins the season Jordan retired

For players judged on titles, winning is all that matters. If the Bulls didn't draft Pippen, Jordan would be considered a worse player. Not fair or true, but just how it is. People don't take into account that Russell played with a team of HOFers and the greatest executive/coach of all-time and Wilt didn't until he was much older. They just look at the 11 rings Russell won.

my whole point is that they shouldnt be judge on titles. If you are in GOAT conversation you should have min 1-2 rings but after that it should be about individual performances

sopclod · Post #155 » by **sopclod** » Sun Jan 25, 2015 10:34 pm

Buckeye-NBAFan wrote:
nikster wrote:I realize that he also has the numbers. Just frustrated with those who are saying that any player would need a perfect finals record to be in the conversation for GOAT.
But its not the Jordan wasnt unbeatable in his prime, his team was. Scottie led the Bulls to 50+wins the season Jordan retired

For players judged on titles, winning is all that matters. If the Bulls didn't draft Pippen, Jordan would be considered a worse player. Not fair or true, but just how it is. People don't take into account that Russell played with a team of HOFers and the greatest executive/coach of all-time and Wilt didn't until he was much older. They just look at the 11 rings Russell won.

This is one of my pet peeves. Basketball is a team sport. The top 7 players in NBA history by "rings" are all Boston players from the late 50's to 60's. The next two guys, Robert Horry and Frank Ramsey, each have 7 rings. Are they better than MJ?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/most_championships.html

JeepCSC · Post #156 » by **JeepCSC** » Sun Jan 25, 2015 10:45 pm

Basketball is probably the most dependent on individual talent in winning of the major team sports. Certainly winning isn't the only thing, but it does matter when viewed with context. What makes Jordan "Jordan" is that he is at the intersection of talent, stats, and wins. You could out argue him on any one attribute, but it is a tough slog to do it on all three.

NashtyNas · Post #157 » by **NashtyNas** » Sun Jan 25, 2015 10:46 pm

Collymore wrote:
I_Socrates wrote:I think it's safe to say MJ is goat until somebody can pull off 6+ rings with at least one three peat.

I like how GOATness have gone from number of titles to the number of titles and the order you win them in. It's up there with quality logic like 6 finals and 6 ships are better than 9 finals and 6 ships.

How many players have managed to get a three peat? How many of those players have never lost in the Finals?

Your analogy of "6 finals and 6 ships are better than 9 finals and 6 ships" is kind of ludicrous.
It depends totally on the circumstances.

Going to the Finals and losing like LeBron did against the Spurs TWICE certainly means nothing.
I don't care if you made it to the Finals those 2 years, you got EMBARRASSED. You lost by unbelievable margins. Who cares if you made it there, it means NOTHING. Add in the fact that he was in the East in both years, and it won't matter if he gets to the Finals every year. If he's not winning the rings, no one cares how many times he was there.

Being able to 3 peat and never losing in the Finals is a far greater accomplishment than making it to the Finals 10 times and losing 9.

nikster · Post #158 » by **nikster** » Sun Jan 25, 2015 11:06 pm

I_Socrates wrote:
Collymore wrote:
I_Socrates wrote:I think it's safe to say MJ is goat until somebody can pull off 6+ rings with at least one three peat.

I like how GOATness have gone from number of titles to the number of titles and the order you win them in. It's up there with quality logic like 6 finals and 6 ships are better than 9 finals and 6 ships.

How many players have managed to get a three peat? How many of those players have never lost in the Finals?

Your analogy of "6 finals and 6 ships are better than 9 finals and 6 ships" is kind of ludicrous.
It depends totally on the circumstances.

Going to the Finals and losing like LeBron did against the Spurs TWICE certainly means nothing.
I don't care if you made it to the Finals those 2 years, you got EMBARRASSED. You lost by unbelievable margins. Who cares if you made it there, it means NOTHING. Add in the fact that he was in the East in both years, and it won't matter if he gets to the Finals every year. If he's not winning the rings, no one cares how many times he was there.

Being able to 3 peat and never losing in the Finals is a far greater accomplishment than making it to the Finals 10 times and losing 9.

it means you were good enough to make it there. Making it to the finals and losing is better than losing earlier in the playoffs. If in Jordans comeback year with the bulls they lost in the finals, is that worse than losing to Orlando in the 2nd round? Would that have a negative impact on his legacy?

Buckeye-NBAFan · Post #159 » by **Buckeye-NBAFan** » Sun Jan 25, 2015 11:30 pm

sopclod wrote:
Buckeye-NBAFan wrote:
nikster wrote:I realize that he also has the numbers. Just frustrated with those who are saying that any player would need a perfect finals record to be in the conversation for GOAT.
But its not the Jordan wasnt unbeatable in his prime, his team was. Scottie led the Bulls to 50+wins the season Jordan retired

For players judged on titles, winning is all that matters. If the Bulls didn't draft Pippen, Jordan would be considered a worse player. Not fair or true, but just how it is. People don't take into account that Russell played with a team of HOFers and the greatest executive/coach of all-time and Wilt didn't until he was much older. They just look at the 11 rings Russell won.

This is one of my pet peeves. Basketball is a team sport. The top 7 players in NBA history by "rings" are all Boston players from the late 50's to 60's. The next two guys, Robert Horry and Frank Ramsey, each have 7 rings. Are they better than MJ?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/most_championships.html

That's a strawman argument. Russell does have a little bit more going for him than that. But to a point I agree.

Fran Vasquez · Post #160 » by **Fran Vasquez** » Mon Jan 26, 2015 12:16 am

the only real defect in jordans career is that time orlando got them out of the playoffs, the guy was a monster when it mattered, he was way way better than lebron, plain and simple. Also, the closest to him would be kobe, not bron, and bron is a MONSTER, and the only reason jordan does not even have more rings is the pistons had an hilariously good team for a couple years and he did not, back then the east was an actual conference with actual baskeball players in it